The Interaction of Entrepreneurship and Institutions

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: Previous research, notably Baumol (1990), has highlighted the role of institutions in channeling entrepreneurial supply into productive, unproductive or destructive activities. However, entrepreneurship is not only influenced by institutionsentrepreneurs often help shape institutions themselves. The bilateral causal relation between entrepreneurs and institutions is examined in this paper. Entrepreneurs affect institutions in at least three ways. Entrepreneurship abiding by existing institutions is occasionally disruptive enough to challenge the foundations of prevailing institutions. Entrepreneurs sometimes have the opportunity to evade institutions, which tends to undermine the effectiveness of the institutions, or cause institutions to change for the better. Lastly, entrepreneurs can directly alter institutions through innovative political entrepreneurship. Like business entrepreneurship, innovative political activity may be productive or unproductive, depending on the incentives facing entrepreneurs. Terms of use: Documents in The Interaction of Entrepreneurship and Institutions Magnus Henrekson and Tino SanandajiJEL Codes: L5; M13; O31; P14.

Institutional Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Behavior in Challenging Environments

“…The exception is where they are well-connected as can be frequently observed in post-Soviet states, where "state capture" by party members-turnedentrepreneurs was a dominant process in the early stages of transition (Hellman, Jones, and Kaufmann 2003;Voszka 1994). Henrekson and Sanandaji (2010) identified three behavioral mechanisms through which entrepreneurs can influence institutions, namely abiding, evading, and altering. Altering behavior or in Oliver's terminology "manipulation," refers to direct actions of entrepreneurs aiming at reforming formal institutions, although not surprisingly, their ability to do so typically depends on their power and social standing (Kalantaridis 2007).…”

Institutional entrepreneurs as change agents in rural-peripheral regions?

“…Regarding the first question posed -What kind of entrepreneurship the behaviour of the public policy agent represents if it is not related to corporate entrepreneurship? -, it can be acknowledged across various research strands (e.g., Battilana & Casciaro 2012;Henrekson & Sanandaji 2010;Li et al 2006) that institutional entrepreneurs are commonly seen as agents who work to change institutionalised patterns of thinking and acting. Hence, the concept incorporates elements associated with elements taken from both entrepreneurship theories and institutional accounts (cf.…”

Creative Forces for Entrepreneurship: The Role of Institutional Change Agents

“…Martin (2010) emphasizes processes of gradual institutional evolution, by adding new procedures or structures (layering), they are reoriented towards new purposes (conversion) or recombined (recombination). Henrekson and Sanandaji (2010), Oliver (1991), Tracey and Phillips (2011). 12 Applying this to the repertoire of actions outlined in Table 1, one can conclude that it is not only non-conforming behaviour which might contribute to institutional change, but rather any entrepreneurial behaviour which either openly questions existing institutions (through evasion or manipulation), or, by conforming, contributes to gradual change over time as suggested by Martin (2010).…”